Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilson v. David

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

August 2, 2018

DEON WILSON, #R32597, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. DAVID, PENNY GEORGE, MARY ANN, and MELISSA, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

         Plaintiff Deon Wilson, an inmate in Vienna Correctional Center (“Vienna”), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims the defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical issues in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1). This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:

(a) Screening - The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal - On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

         An action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of entitlement to relief must cross “the line between possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

         Upon careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to allow this case to proceed past the threshold stage.

         The Complaint

         In his Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following allegations: on December 29, 2017, Plaintiff visited the Health Care Unit to request special shoes. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He had experienced issues with “damaged feet” previously. Id. Defendant Nurse Practitioner Mary Ann told Plaintiff that he had “toe deformities, enlarged joints, flat feet, and redness and permanence of toes.” Id. Plaintiff was then referred to Defendant Penny George for his request for special shoes. Id. Plaintiff signed a money voucher for his $5 co-pay. Id. The co-pay was deducted from inmate Roland Wilson's account. Id. Defendant Mary Ann had also previously “mixed up Plaintiff's and Mr. Roland Wilson's Medical Files.” Id. In fact, Roland Wilson was taken to Plaintiff's medical appointments on January 2, 12, 18, 25, 26, and 27, 2018 by mistake. Id.

         On February 2, 2018, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Dr. David. (Doc. 1, p. 7). David told Plaintiff that he did not have a foot deformity and therefore did not need special shoes. Id. David then excused Plaintiff, denying him any care, despite Plaintiff's objections that he was in pain. Id. On February 2, 2018, Roland Wilson had his blood drawn instead of Plaintiff. Id.

         Plaintiff was scheduled to have his blood drawn for a rheumatoid arthritis test. Id.

         Plaintiff filed a grievance on February 23, 2018, claiming that “he was afraid of the way his health issues would be handled” because his medical files had been mixed up with Roland Wilson's. Id. The response from the counselor noted that, per Defendant George, Plaintiff was seen on February 2, 2018 to evaluate his feet and should submit a sick call request if he was still having foot issues. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8). Plaintiff then sent his grievance to the grievance officer who responded to him noting that, per Defendant George: “The appropriate individual, which is offender Wilson, R32597 was given appropriate medications, shots, and had blood drawn.” (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff's blood had not been drawn, however. Id. Plaintiff then appealed to the Administrative Review Board, which denied his claim as unsubstantiated. Id.

         On March 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed another grievance concerning his ongoing pain and continued neglect. Id. It was denied. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-9). Plaintiff believes that Vienna's Health Care Unit failed to ensure the privacy of his health information in the course of the alleged medical file mix-ups, which jeopardized his health. (Doc. 1, p. 9).

         Plaintiff requests declaratory and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief “ordering all defendants and IDOC to cease depriving offenders/Plaintiff of the right to follow through with grievance procedures and/or aiding in such deprivations, and implement discipline for such actions.” (Doc. 1, p. 10). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.